TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Some NSA News (hope they're not tapping me right now...)
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Ya know, it's interesting. If I recall correctly on the timeline of events pertaining to this NSA scandal, I believe the first Democratic president you Bush apologists went running to for comparison was Clinton. Well that blew up in your face because it was demonstrated that although Clinton's actions on physical searches were ethically questionable, they were not illegal. So then you drew up Carter, which also blew up in your face because what he did was before the FISA courts were created in '79. So now you reach back into your pocket for another Democratic president, FDR. I just want to make sure you haven't skipped other Dem. Presidents in that timeline, because just in case you were wondering, there are a few in between.

look dude, FDR was an example of "any" president worth being called an apologist for defending such action. such legal action.

quote:

When was FISA created?

around your birthday.

quote:

Straw man. This has nothing to do with either one. It has everything to do with breaking current FISA and telecommunications laws, those same laws that this President swore to uphold. What past presidents have or haven't done to uphold that swear is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

no one gives a damn if it's a straw man argument or not. you would not be so indignant about this if it were Chuck Schumer doing this as President. thats just my gut feeling. you are sickeningly blinded my hate and bias.

quote:

Tell ya what, champ, when you actually address the specific points I made previously, then I think we'll actually be holding a worthwhile conversation. I just pointed out to you specific laws that were broken by both this Administration and the phone companies for their complicit actions. You jumped right over those points as if they didn't exist. Do us all a favor and address the points given to you, rather than tango your way out with ad hominems.

no. FISA makes distinctions between what is "electronic surveillance" of communications and addressing info of communications. FISA can be interpreted as a non-regulatory entinty with regard to those billing addresses.

NSA data mining is also protected from the 4th Amendment by Supreme Court precedent.

quote:

Well when I see "big boys" actually handling the jobs given to them, believe me sweetie, you'll be the first to know.

don't count on the mid-terms then.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Yes, we have had it before, and I don't really want to turn this thread in to a gun debate, so I'll leave off "shooting" down all your bad points. But I will say this; You're wrong about small arms not being effective as an insurgency weapon. How is it that you figure having no right to bear arms is better than at least some fighting chance with the right to bear arms, should the U.S. Government ever decide that it wants to somehow opporess us? Did you know that Bush is one of the biggest supporters of teh 2nd Am. we've had here in the states in a long time? Does it make sense that a man whom you all think is trying to oppress us would also empower us to fight this oppression? Think about it. Then realize that this paranoia about data-mining is just that.

Do you really think that even with assault weapons, a revolution could really occur here? Bush and his military people know this. I mean, how can the common citizen armed with an assault weapon compete with trained military personnel, infrared technology, night vision (yes, I know you can buy night vision, but who has it?), aerial bombings, etc? You're insane if you think that allowing citizens to own firearms is a threat to the government. It's more of a threat than Americans having no firearms, but not much more. Now if we were really allowed to bear arms in the sense that would allow revolution (aka bombs, fully automatics, more control over ammo making capabilites), then maybe there'd be an argument. You see what happens to militias or any other group in this country that even comes close to starting a stockpile of weapons and traing members, don't you?

Secondly, data mining can be effective at eliminating threats for all the reasons I put down before. It's hardly paranoia. There's a reason we do intel in other countries, and it's to gain an upper hand. Now our government is doing it against their own people. Why?? It's surely not because we're all terrorists.

Lastly, I don't even care about the motives. Spying on American citizens and conducting surveillance without a warrant, which must be obtained with some semblance of cause, IS ILLEGAL. It was one of the first laws put into place here, protecting the rights of the citizens from unnecessary intrusions by the government in our lives. Read some history of the US prior to the Revolutionary War. Find out why people left Europe to come here. Find out why they fought, and learn their justifications for making the laws the way that they did following the war. I majored in American Studies when I was in college. I took classes about this stuff in college and read plenty of books about the founding of this country. The people who founded this country would be appalled at what is going on here. Sure times have changed, technology has changed, but in the end, it's still the same type of unlawful intrusion into our lives that they hated.

Oh and to pkcRAISTLIN, there are more reasons for owning firearms than to kill other people. I mean, you could be a PETA person and my argument would be void, but hunting is a pretty common thing in the US. I also used to shoot competitively in my teens, which I really enjoyed. Gun control is actually one area where I'm with closer to the conservatives, but that's because I'm more of a libertarian than a liberal.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco I said "most". Now who's jumping to conclusions?

You've referred to me as a whiny or angry liberal how many times in the last 2 hours?? Pardon me if I took that as a direct comment, seeing as how there are only like 5 people that you've been debating with in the past couple of days.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Yes, we have had it before, and I don't really want to turn this thread in to a gun debate, so I'll leave off "shooting" down all your bad points.

*cough* copout *cough*

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco But I will say this; You're wrong about small arms not being effective as an insurgency weapon.

no, no they dont. i couldnt see an insurgency in the same understanding as iraq ever coming to fruition in the US.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Did you know that Bush is one of the biggest supporters of the 2nd Am. we've had here in the states in a long time? Does it make sense that a man whom you all think is trying to oppress us would also empower us to fight this oppression?

i never stated bush is trying to oppress us. merely that he seems to be doing some things that should be legally questioned, and things that could be oppressive in nature, depending on their use. i really think your argument is a non sequitur- since when has any government shown wholly consistent platforms of policy & governance? haha.

Fine; Just for you, Raisinette.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ... you just have to ask the branch davidians how their right to bear assault rifles went in protecting themselves and their property from your government.

They fought back and killed a few ATF Agents. No whether you agree with their actions or not, this event had a HUGE impact on the way the ATF acts now when it comes to arresting those whom they think are are possessing weapons illegally. So I'd venture to say that their use of
small arms was VERY effective. It was the ATF's use of fire that was gruesome.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN the thought that any group could withstand the special forces in any western democracy is quite simply ridiculous. my argument re the right to bear arms is that the writers of the constituion couldnt have envisaged the technological improvements until the end of time, and that today's weaponry shouldnt be in the hands of your average joe.

This logic is so full of holes you should change your name to "Packistaniswisscheese".

First off; Even in recent history, whole armies have been kept at bay by guerilla forces using almost nothing but small arms. You don't know squatt about military history.

Second off; The musket WAS the Assault Rifle of its day. Civilians were given the same right as the military to have equally powerful weapons. It was always the intention of the framers of the Constituion that the civilian population have the ability to take on the military on equal footing, should that military and the government behind it become oppressive. In fact, it's a right to "bear arms". The argument could even be made that we have a right to own cannons and tanks. But you're trying to say that we can't even own a musket in this day and age?

So on the one hand, assault rifles aren't powerful enough to stop a modern army, yet they're TOO powerful for civilians to own? Double-standard, IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ...if we chalked up the amount of homicides related to citizen versus citizen when compared to citizen versus oppressive government, what exactly does it show eh? if the 2nd amendment isnt protecting a citizen from the actions of its government, and is merely allowing a flood of firearms to exist, i see it as completely counter productive.

Read your history. Countless millions have been killed by oppressive governments and Dictators because they were dis-armed. The Jews under Hitler. Cambodians under Pol Pot. Russians under Stalin, etc., etc...the list goes on.

Yet, many armed civilians have fought back and kept whole armies at bay with just a few small arms. Like the Jews during the Warsaw Ghetto up-rising.

You're a fool Raisin to think that people are ever going to stop taking advantage of their dis-armed enemy, wherever they see fit to create that enemy in their mind's eye.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN now, america is too well fvcked now to ever disarm its populace, but im much happier living in a country where gun-related murders are quite low.

Last I heard, your incidents of crimes involving fire arms has been on the rise ever since they out-lawed guns over there...simply because the criminals now know that they're the only ones armed.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Last I heard, your incidents of crimes involving fire arms has been on the rise ever since they out-lawed guns over there...simply because the criminals now know that they're the only ones armed.

im heading out so will attend to the rest of your post later, just wanted to talk about this. thats a bollocks statistic used by pro-gun groups in the US. that stat was gathered in 1996-7, and if you look at the gun related homicides since then there has been a steady decline. i posted that data last time we duelled

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 stfu n00b....i said it would impossible to listen in on EVERYONE'S phone calls (which would be in the billions per day)...look at what i write before u jump down my throat!

Again you show your lack of understanding anything-
-1 machine>> OC-192 carries about 10 gigabits of data per second. Ten billion bits per second, monitored in real-time
I did look at what you wrote and it was pure fluff, what are you 15-25? This technolgy has been fine tuned for decades. Oh yeah Clinton must have something to do with this....

This subject has nothing to do with what party you support but with our basic rights which you seem to be willing to give away for the illusion of safety.


From the links I posted which you didn't read:
_________________________________________________________
"this machine was built for the sole purpose of wholesale Internet and Phone surveillance"

"created to connect directly to the AT&T backbone network"

"been created solely for spying on AT&T transmissions"

"this *one* box has the capability to fully monitor all of the layer four traffic of 16 major telecommunication companies at once"
_______________________________________________________
ATT's Daytona Database contains phone record data that goes back 30yrs. That is just one of the databases thats now open for snooping, now add all the other telecommunications network databases together.

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 They arent spying on everyone...and if it helps find the bad boys i am all for it.

the fact that they may acting illegaly against only some people is no defense of that illegality. this is a nation of laws.

if they're so concerned about catching the 'bad boys' then they should act within the legal and legislative system. otherwise, they're no better than the terrorists.

I don't understand the all the hoopla...

The NSA isn't collecting any more data than what the phone companies already do and give you at the end of every month in your bill.
Some people forgot to read the fine print I guess...

It looks quite clear in recent polls that most Americans find the way NSA is going about this as acceptable.

AND this was reported back in DECEMBER...

quote:

Journalistic archeology The first point to make is that this is not a new story. The New York Times first published a story about this back in December, 2005, just a week after the NSA al-Qaeda intercept program was blown. It is thus quite clear that the USA Today story is recycled old scandal-mongering from last year... and the only NSA-related story recently that could have sparked this renewed interest is (quite obviously) the nomination of Gen. Hayden. From the December NYT story: Since the disclosure last week of the N.S.A.'s domestic surveillance program, President Bush and his senior aides have stressed that his executive order allowing eavesdropping without warrants was limited to the monitoring of international phone and e-mail communications involving people with known links to Al Qaeda. What has not been publicly acknowledged is that N.S.A. technicians, besides actually eavesdropping on specific conversations, have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might point to terrorism suspects. Some officials describe the program as a large data-mining operation. Sounds strangely familiar, yes? This is clearly the exact, same story as the one USA Today "broke" yesterday. Nowhere does yesterday's USA Today article divulge that the Times scooped them by four and a half months, and neither AP nor Reuters seems to be able to remember back that far. Today's Times story credits USA Today with the story in paragraph two; but it does not mention that this is old stuff, long ago reported by the Times itself, until the twelfth paragraph. Even then, it mentions its own earlier story in such an oblique, laconic fashion -- followed by a lurid charge supported only by Mr. Anonymous -- that readers could easily be excused for missing the point that this is old, dessicated outrage.

>>Source<<

So what's the problem again?
Looks to me like NSA is actually doing their jobs from up here in Canada...

I think this guy pretty much hits it right on the head...

quote:

Connecting-the-Dots, Data Mining and the Loss of Real Civil Liberties In the run up to the 2004 election I debated a very left-wing professor who went on and on about how the Patriot Act was essentially a reincarnation of Gestapo or KGB tactics. I responded that I was of course concerned about individual liberties and the unfettered power of the state, but that in the post-9/11 world there is a balancing act between liberty and security, and that I would be more sympathetic to critics of the Patriot Act if they could point to specific cases of abuse. Show me the real alive Jane and Joe Americans who have had their liberties violated in some grotesque manner by the Patriot Act. Needless to say, the professor moved on. I ask the same question today to the bloggers and pundits out there who are hyperventilating over the latest revelation that our security agencies are actually trying to do their job. Many of the people decrying these violations of civil liberties are the same ones who ripped the government for its inability to "connect-the-dots" prior to 9/11. But the paranoia on the left, and in particular, the hatred for the Bush administration has become so intense there is an automatic assumption that the NSA has to be engaging in nefarious activity, spying on you and your neighbor. The idea that the agency is thinking creatively and proactively about how they can legally monitor the bad guys instead of just going about business as usual is, apparently, out of the question for some. The sad truth is it is probably going to take another devastating attack to convince many in this country that we are actually at war against Islamic jihadists. That is something true civil libertarians should think long and hard about. The more vigilant we are today in preventing attacks, the more it will pay off in spades in terms of protecting our civil liberties in the future. Because if this country gets hit with a small nuke and 30,000 or 100,000 Americans die, all of the debating will be over. The ensuing crackdown will be massive, and the loss of REAL civil liberties will become very, very possible.

>>Source<<

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I don't understand the all the hoopla... The NSA isn't collecting any more data than what the phone companies already do and give you at the end of every month in your bill.

That, makes all of the difference. The US constitution's 4th amendment protects citizens from the government. Here is the part of the preample and the actual amendment text:

quote:

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine. THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. Fourth Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You may be able to argue that the NSA's acts are not prohibited by the case or statutory law, but you can't seriously entertain an argument that claims that governmental acts that are otherwise illegal become legal when non-governmental entities perform those same acts legally.

When people purchase phone service they willingly enter into a contract. Implied in this contract, if not already explicit, is that the companies will maintain call records and other data. In some cases, companies share data with other companies, but even here there is notice and even opt out procedures. There is no expectation that the phone company will share data with the government. Perhaps, if they make it explicit and have opt out procedures, then it would be ok. That is not the case here though.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r It looks quite clear in recent polls that most Americans find the way NSA is going about this as acceptable.

The US is nation of laws, not of polls. If people don't like the laws , then let them go through the legislative process.

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange That, makes all of the difference. The US constitution's 4th amendment protects citizens from the government. Here is the part of the preample and the actual amendment text: You may be able to argue that the NSA's acts are not prohibited by the case or statutory law, but you can't seriously entertain an argument that claims that governmental acts that are otherwise illegal become legal when non-governmental entities perform those same acts legally. When people purchase phone service they willingly enter into a contract. Implied in this contract, if not already explicit, is that the companies will maintain call records and other data. In some cases, companies share data with other companies, but even here there is notice and even opt out procedures. There is no expectation that the phone company will share data with the government. Perhaps, if they make it explicit and have opt out procedures, then it would be ok. That is not the case here though.

Then find me ONE major telecom executive that hasn't willingly complied with the NSA's function to support all these alligations. (Some may not have been happy I'm sure).
You might have an arguement then.
You, the taxpayer, pay these people to perform the very function you're fighting against.
What the hell are they supposed to be doing if not their job?
What exactly is so damn scary about them knowing 555-1212 called 444-1212?
There's no collection of names, addresses or any other personal information.
This is a real big windbag issue, totally overblown by the MSM as usual.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Then find me ONE major telecom executive that hasn't willingly complied with the NSA's function to support all these alligations. (Some may not have been happy I'm sure).

Joseph P. Nacchio
NYT LINK


BTW its's beside the point whether any or all of the executives handed over information. It does not make it legal. Furthermore, there are civil penalties for doing what those accomplices (AT&T, Verizon, etc.) did and not surprisingly lawyers have filed lawsuits.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r You, the taxpayer, pay these people to perform the very function you're fighting against. What the hell are they supposed to be doing if not their job?

Whether people pay taxes or not is irrelevant. In any case, it is there duty to enforce the laws and not violate prohibitions such as the 4th amendment.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r What exactly is so damn scary about them knowing 555-1212 called 444-1212? There's no collection of names, addresses or any other personal information. This is a real big windbag issue, totally overblown by the MSM as usual.

Then why does the government want to do it?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r What exactly is so damn scary about them knowing 555-1212 called 444-1212? There's no collection of names, addresses or any other personal information. This is a real big windbag issue, totally overblown by the MSM as usual.

If anything the media has been too lax about reporting these issues, much like it fell asleep during the build-up to the Iraw war.

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange Joseph P. Nacchio NYT LINK BTW its's beside the point whether any or all of the executives handed over information. It does not make it legal. Furthermore, there are civil penalties for doing what those accomplices (AT&T, Verizon, etc.) did and not surprisingly lawyers have filed lawsuits. Whether people pay taxes or not is irrelevant. In any case, it is there duty to enforce the laws and not violate prohibitions such as the 4th amendment. Then why does the government want to do it? If anything the media has been too lax about reporting these issues, much like it fell asleep during the build-up to the Iraw war.

lol. you kinda sound like this:

quote:

Congress to Scrap NSA, Create �Transparent� Spy Agency by Scott Ott (2006-05-12) � Concerned that the National Security Agency (NSA) may have violated the civil liberties of Americans by analyzing records of millions of phone calls to detect patterns that might indicate terrorist activity, a bipartisan coalition in Congress today will unveil legislation to scrap the NSA and replace it with a more �transparent� spy agency. According to language in the measure, the new intelligence unit, dubbed Open-Source Intelligence (OSI), will �harness the power of the internet to protect the right of the American people to know how their spy dollar is spent.� �There�s nothing like sunshine to ensure accountability,� said an unnamed Congressional aide who spoke in exchange for a lobster dinner, a fine chianti and a $12 Macanudo cigar. �Just because the enemy is among us, using our telecommunications infrastructure to plot the next major attack, doesn�t mean the government can sneak around doing secret stuff simply to save a few thousand, or million, lives. We have rights.� Under the terms of the bill, the OSI website will include a list of all covert agents, with photos, home addresses, email links and IM screennames. As the OSI gathers data, it will be accessible in real-time through the website to �premium subscribers,� but even non-members will be able to view the aggregated data, and listen to brief, sample clips of legally intercepted phone calls.�

>>Source<<

Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?

The real danger in programs like the NSA data mining is that they are likely to be much better for disrupting opposition political movements, or labor organizing, than for finding terrorists. The terrorists already expect that they are being monitored, and they often maintain a cell structure, with very restricted communication between cells.

Consider, however, political demonstrations, like anti-WTO protests or demonstrations at political conventions. These kinds of movements normally consist of 95% people just expressing their freedom of speech, 4% or so who might engage in nonviolent civil disobedience, and 1% people who might be up to some more serious vandalism. What you do (if you're are a Nixon-like control freak who wants to keep the unruly mobs away from the boss) is to use the 1% as a justification to turn on your son-of-total-information-awareness system, then use the calling patterns to identify the leaders of the movement. A few days before the convention, WTO meeting, or whatever, the leaders are all swept off the streets. The bus companies they hired to bring activists to the convention get served with orders not to supply busses to the alleged criminals.

If you're running China, these kinds of tools are exactly what you need to prevent dissidents from organizing.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r What exactly is so damn scary about them knowing 555-1212 called 444-1212? There's no collection of names, addresses or any other personal information.

Wrong those numbers must have a name/address, and or a billing address.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im heading out so will attend to the rest of your post later, just wanted to talk about this. thats a bollocks statistic used by pro-gun groups in the US. that stat was gathered in 1996-7, and if you look at the gun related homicides since then there has been a steady decline. i posted that data last time we duelled

I'll be back later (when I have some time) to look up those stats again and see if they've changed, but I don't think they have...and I'll post accordingly

oh yea...that last post was satirical btw...

On a more serious note:

quote:

Those Phone Records Sure Are Secret! Reader John Farmer emails: I found the Qwest privacy policy for telephone customers on the Web. Note this: "Our representatives pull up account records and may refer to your bill, your calling patterns, and other information we have to answer questions you may have or recommend how we can best serve you." And this: "We share information within our Qwest companies to enable us to better understand our customers' product and service needs, and to learn how to best design, develop, and package products and services to meet those needs. . . . Currently, our primary lines of business include local and long-distance services, wireless services, cable services, dedicated web hosting, Internet access for businesses and consumers, on-line services, and directory publishing. We also offer other products and services, for example, Frame Relay, Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), telephone equipment, voice mail services, and directory advertising." And this: "As a general rule, Qwest does not release customer account information to unaffiliated third parties without your permission unless we have a business relationship with those companies where the disclosure is appropriate." So . . . It's a great invasion of privacy to data mine calling patterns for national security purposes, even if the call is not listened to. But, isn't it noteworthy that the phone company does this on a far more personal level to decide what services to try to sell to you and, probably, to do joint marketing to you with others? Moral of the story: Those hot and bothered by the telephone call database mining program don't know or appreciate what telephone companies do all the time for their business purposes or the purposes of their business partners. Great point. And wasn't there a big news story just a couple of months ago about the fact that, for a nominal sum, you can buy anyone's cell phone records? In fact, liberal bloggers tried to put together a plan to buy and analyze the telephone records of prominent Republicans in hopes of finding calls that would somehow be embarrassing. These same liberals, of course, are now up in arms about the fact that the NSA does computer analyses of phone records, not with the malicious purpose of singling out political enemies for harassment, but to try to stop terrorist attacks. There is really no hypocrisy quite like the hypocrisy of a liberal. One more thing: since Qwest shares its customers' records with companies with which it has a "business relationship," but not with the NSA to prevent terrorist attacks, there is no way I'm doing business with Qwest.

If we only really knew what teleco's do with our marketing information.
It's really no different when companies do data mining with your own computer while you're surfing around, and sell that information to marketers.
What about junk mail for that matter?
As soon as one gets you, a few weeks later you're find all sorts of crap in your mailbox.
What about telemarketers?
The bane of humanity's existance.

I certainly didn't ask for my personal information to be shared with any of them!!
Where's the outcry on those?

These are far more personally intrusive than anything the NSA is doing. Trying to find patterns in call logs when trying to find terrorists and potentially stop another 9/11. Wow.
Is that what it would take? Another 9/11? Because the debate would be over then.
Why not let the NSA do it's job then.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r oh yea...that last post was satirical btw... On a more serious note: If we only really knew what teleco's do with our marketing information. It's really no different when companies do data mining with your own computer while you're surfing around, and sell that information to marketers. What about junk mail for that matter? As soon as one gets you, a few weeks later you're find all sorts of crap in your mailbox. What about telemarketers? The bane of humanity's existance. I certainly didn't ask for my personal information to be shared with any of them!! Where's the outcry on those? These are far more personally intrusive than anything the NSA is doing. Trying to find patterns in call logs when trying to find terrorists and potentially stop another 9/11. Wow. Is that what it would take? Another 9/11? Because the debate would be over then. Why not let the NSA do it's job then.

**Bangs head on the wall***

Have you even read my posts? I already addressed this issue.

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange **Bangs head on the wall*** Have you even read my posts? I already addressed this issue.

**Bangs head on the wall***

Why do you think I'm always addressing you?

Yes, you sign a contract with a phone company when you get a phone number; nothing new here.

In fact, I can even purchase your cell phone records if I wanted; legally.

Your 4th amendment clearly states that:

quote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

With a war on terror, trying to find terrorists is probable cause enough wouldn't you think?
Finding call patterns isn't that much to alarmed about is it?
What's the violation again?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r With a war on terror, trying to find terrorists is probable cause enough wouldn't you think?

I can't hold it against you that you, a canadian, don't understand american law when many american's don't understand american law. Given that, the 'probable cause' refers to whether the government has a reasonable suspicion based on specific evidence that a particular person committed or is about to commit a crime sufficient that they may conduct an intrusive search using a warrant or conduct a less intrusive warrantless search (such as a frisking on the street).

The fourth amendement's intent is to protect against government instrusions. In practice it serves as a defense. Let's look at two hypotheticals of how they come into play in when the fourth amendment exists and doesn't exist.

No Fourth Amendement Rights

1) The Police storm a house, conduct a warrantless search, and where they arrest the occupant for growing marijuana. It later comes to light that the police stormed every house on the block and that they picked that street at random. The person would be screwed.

Under this scenario police can enter into people's homes at random, can frisk people without knowledge of any wrongdoing and without any checks on police abuse. What's the harm? The right to be secure in one's possessions and the right to privacy (there are some that argue that there's no such thing).

With Fourth Amendment Rights

2) Same facts. The person would be able to defend themselves against the marijuana charged arguing that the police did not have warrant based on any evidence that they were violating the law in a specific way. Under this scenario the police only conduct intrusive searches that may lead to prosecutions when they have warrant based on specific evidence that someone is doing something against the law. The police are therefore restrained from casting dragnets and violating peoples' rights to be secure in their possessions.

Unfortunately, the police sometimes get away with warrantless searches when they don't arrest someone. (Have you seen the movie Training Day? If not, see it because this precise thing happens there. Denzel, playing a cop, enters a woman's house waiving a paper. He sits her down and then proceeds to rob her and leaves. The paper turns out to be a chinese-food menu.) People may be able to sue for civil penalties though.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Finding call patterns isn't that much to alarmed about is it? What's the violation again?

The violation may that the government conducted a search without any probable cause that the persons searched violated any laws. Some may argue that what the government did is not a search, but I'm not sure how tennable that is.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Please go back and show me where I've used a personal attack or profane word against you...please? I don't use name calling or profanity unless it comes at me first. @Raisin "getting my arse handed to me". Why don't you butt out until I call for your comic relief, ok?

Ummm ok, how about this thread?

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...er&pagenumber=2

Gee, "OMG" I don't know my history do I? Why don't you try giving your opponent the benefit of the doubt before you accuse them of being ignorant huh?

^ mean! you've been nasty lately, where'd your self control go? for shame!

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 ^ mean! you've been nasty lately, where'd your self control go? for shame!

dude are you in shower in your avatar? talk about nasty shame

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange The violation may that the government conducted a search without any probable cause that the persons searched violated any laws. Some may argue that what the government did is not a search, but I'm not sure how tennable that is.

oic.
So basically you're not willing to cough up ANY civil liberties for the price of security.

I guess my question to you would be then, would will you do when another attack comes? (You just know it's a matter of time).
Hopefully you won't be hyprocritical and blame the government for not trying to do it's job then...

It's amazing that some people are jumping on this 4th ammendment for their own sake but not the sake of their country.
To me it just seems selfish, and I'm pretty sure that's what the polls are indicating too; people understand that this isn't a huge loss in the civil liberties department.
They understand that the government isn't data mining as the MSM is suggesting; the government needs access to call patterns in a time of crisis.
If the government wanted to know where you were, they'd find you, don't worry

[EDIT]
Here's the actual question asked in a snap poll by the Washington Post:

It's been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. It then analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations. Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?


Results:

            ------- Acceptable ------   ----- Unacceptable ------    No   

             NET   Strongly   Somewhat   NET   Somewhat   Strongly   opin.

5/11/06      63       41         22      35       11         24        2

To connect the dots, you have to see the dots

Here's a good article on the subject; it pretty much reflects my views on the subject anyways (of course he's much more articulate )

quote:

To connect the dots, you have to see the dots May 14, 2006 BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Here are two news stories from the end of last week. The first one you may have heard about. As "The Today Show's" Matt Lauer put it: "Does the government have your number? This morning a shocking new report that the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone records of tens of millions of Americans." The second story comes from the United Kingdom and what with Lauer's hyperventilating you may have missed it. It was the official report into the July 7 bus and Tube bombings. As The Times of London summarized the conclusions: "Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the bomb cell, had come to the attention of MI5 [Britain's domestic intelligence agency] on five occasions but had never been pursued as a serious suspect . . . "A lack of communication between police Special Branch units, MI5 and other agencies had hampered the intelligence-gathering operation; "There was a lack of co-operation with foreign intelligence services and inadequate intelligence coverage in . . ." Etc., etc., ad nauseam. So there are now two basic templates in terrorism media coverage: Template A (note to editors: to be used after every terrorist atrocity): "Angry family members, experts and opposition politicians demand to know why complacent government didn't connect the dots." Template B (note to editors: to be used in the run-up to the next terrorist atrocity): "Shocking new report leaked to New York Times for Pulitzer Prize Leak Of The Year Award nomination reveals that paranoid government officials are trying to connect the dots! See pages 3,4,6,7,8, 13-37." How do you connect the dots? To take one example of what we're up against, two days before 9/11, a very brave man, the anti-Taliban resistance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, was assassinated in Afghanistan by killers posing as journalists. His murderers were Algerians traveling on Belgian passports who'd arrived in that part of the world on visas issued by the Pakistani High Commission in the United Kingdom. That's three more countries than many Americans have visited. The jihadists are not "primitives". They're part of a sophisticated network: They travel the world, see interesting places, meet interesting people -- and kill them. They're as globalized as McDonald's -- but, on the whole, they fill in less paperwork. They're very good at compartmentalizing operations: They don't leave footprints, just a toeprint in Country A in Time Zone B and another toe in Country E in Time Zone K. You have to sift through millions of dots to discern two that might be worth connecting. I'm a strong believer in privacy rights. I don't see why Americans are obligated to give the government their bank account details and the holdings therein. Other revenue agencies in other free societies don't require that level of disclosure. But, given that the people of the United States are apparently entirely cool with that, it's hard to see why lists of phone numbers (i.e., your monthly statement) with no identifying information attached to them is of such a vastly different order of magnitude. By definition, "connecting the dots" involves getting to see the dots in the first place. Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) feels differently. "Look at this headline," huffed the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "The secret collection of phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. Now, are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaida?" No. But next time he's flying from D.C. to Burlington, Vt., on a Friday afternoon he might look at the security line: Tens of millions of Americans are having to take their coats and shoes off! Are you telling me that tens of millions of ordinary shoe-wearing Americans are involved with al-Qaida? Of course not. Fifteen out of 19 of the 9/11 killers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. So let's scrap the tens of millions of law-abiding phone records, and say we only want to examine the long-distance phone bills of, say, young men of Saudi origin living in the United States. Can you imagine what Leahy and Lauer would say to that? Oh, no! Racial profiling! The government's snooping on people whose only crime is "dialing while Arab." In a country whose Transportation Security Administration personnel recently pulled Daniel Brown off the plane as a security threat because he had traces of gunpowder on his boots -- he was a uniformed U.S. Marine on his way home from Iraq -- in such a culture any security measure will involve "tens of millions of Americans": again by definition, if one can't profile on the basis of religion or national origin or any other identifying mark with identity-group grievance potential, every program will have to be at least nominally universal. Last week, apropos the Moussaoui case, I remarked on the absurdity of victims of the London Blitz demanding the German perpetrators be brought before a British court. Melanie Phillips, a columnist with the Daily Mail in London and author of the alarming new book Londonistan, responded dryly, "Ah, but if we were fighting World War Two now, we'd lose." She may be right. It's certainly hard to imagine Pat Leahy as FDR or Harry Truman or any other warmongering Democrat of yore. To be sure, most of Pat's Vermont voters would say there is no war; it's just a lot of fearmongering got up by Bush and Cheney to distract from the chads they stole in Florida or whatever. And they're right -- if, by "war," you mean tank battles in the North African desert and air forces bombing English cities night after night. But today no country in the world can fight that kind of war with America. If that's all "war" is, then (once more by definition) there can be no war. If you seek to weaken, demoralize and bleed to death the United States and its allies, you can only do it asymmetrically -- by killing thousands of people and then demanding a criminal trial, by liaising with terrorist groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan and then demanding the government cease inspecting your phone records. I yield to no one in my antipathy to government, but not everyone who's on the federal payroll is a boob, a time-server, a politically motivated malcontent or principal leak supplier to the New York Times. Suppose you're a savvy mid-level guy in Washington, you've just noticed a pattern, you think there might be something in it. But it requires enormous will to talk your bosses into agreeing to investigate further, and everyone up the chain is thinking, gee, if this gets out, will Pat Leahy haul me before the Senate and kill my promotion prospects? There was a lot of that before 9/11, and thousands died. And five years on? �Mark Steyn 2006

>>Source<<

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r oic. So basically you're not willing to cough up ANY civil liberties for the price of security. I guess my question to you would be then, would will you do when another attack comes? (You just know it's a matter of time). Hopefully you won't be hyprocritical and blame the government for not trying to do it's job then...

I'm not willing to give up any civil liberties. I believe in the rule of law and the majesty of the US constitution. To play on Benjamin Franklin's words, the people who give up their civil liberties for security deserve neither.

Think about it: what you and others are suggesting is that the americans should allow their government to adopt policies and be guided by political philosophies that would probably be approved by the very same 'terrorists' that the US government wants to eliminate. If the the US government does that, the terrorists win.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r It's amazing that some people are jumping on this 4th ammendment for their own sake but not the sake of their country. To me it just seems selfish, and I'm pretty sure that's what the polls are indicating too; people understand that this isn't a huge loss in the civil liberties department. They understand that the government isn't data mining as the MSM is suggesting; the government needs access to call patterns in a time of crisis. If the government wanted to know where you were, they'd find you, don't worry [EDIT] Here's the actual question asked in a snap poll by the Washington Post: It's been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. It then analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations. Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat? Results: ------- Acceptable ------ ----- Unacceptable ------ No NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opin. 5/11/06 63 41 22 35 11 24 2

As i wrote above:

quote:

The US is nation of laws, not of polls. If people don't like the laws , then let them go through the legislative process.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.